Hi, I am using Boost.Fusion lately. Sometimes one has a function with several parameters, int f(double d , int i , std::string s){ ...bla bla ... } the logic of the program says that sometimes that same funcion will be called by generic code and in such case it is better if "f" where defined as taking a fusion::vector as argument. int f(fusion::vector<double, int, std::string>) // another function, could be an overload even since there is only one why to define this adaptor function, e.g. int f(fusion::vector<double, int, std::string> x){ return f(at_c<0>(x), at_c<1>(x), at_c<2>(x));\ } and it is pretty mechanical. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have, with consistency with the BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_STRUCT, something called BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_FUNCTION BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_FUNCTION( int, f, double, int, std::string ) (or something like that) that defines the second / fusion-compatible version of f. It could be even a BOOST_FUSION_DEFINE_FUNCTION( int, f, (double, d), (int, i), (std::string, s), ( ... code using variables d, i, s or at_key<d_>, at_key<i_>, at_key<s_> ... ) ) that defines simultaneously the raw-C function, f(double, int, string) *and* the fusion friendly version f(vector<...>). I could probably program these macro for specific cases but not a general one since I don't know enough macro syntax to make it work. Do you think it is a good idea or it is already doable with existing Fusion features? Thank you, Alfredo